1. Motion on the Adoption of the IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 (Issue Report on ‘Thick’ WHOIS)
Made by:Tim Ruiz
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report
http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm)
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily
accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.
WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;
WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed these recommendations;
WHEREAS the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to ‘consider IRTP Part B Recommendation #3 concerning the request of an Issue Report on the requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs at its next meeting on 21 July’.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report on the requirement of ‘thick’ WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. Such an Issue Report and possible subsequent Policy Development Process should not only consider a possible requirement of 'thick' WHOIS or all incumbent gTLDs in the context of IRTP, but should also consider any other positive and/or negative effects that are likely to occur outside of IRTP that would need to be taken into account when deciding whether a requirement of 'thick' WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs would be desirable or not. (IRTP Part B Recommendation #3)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C
Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by:
Whereas the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) is an existing consensus policy under review by the GNSO;
Whereas the GNSO Transfers Working Group identified a number of issues in its review of the current Policy and those issues have been grouped into suggested PDPs, set A-E, as per the Council's resolution of 8 May 2008;
Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on IRTP Part C at its meeting on 22 June 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201106);
Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 25 July 2011 for public comment (see http://gnso.icann.org/transfers/preliminary-issue-report-irtp-c-25jul11-en.pdf);
Whereas a Final Issue Report on IRTP Part C was published on 29 August 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf);
Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO
RESOLVED:
The GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part C (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf).
A Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP.
3. Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Working Group (WG)
Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by:
Whereas on 22 September 2011 the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C and decided to create a PDP Working Group for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP;
Whereas the GNSO Council has reviewed the charter.
RESOLVED,
The GSNO Council approves the charter and appoints [to be confirmed] as the GNSO Council Liaison to the IRTP Part C PDP Working Group.
The GNSO Council further directs that the work of the IRTP Part C WG be initiated no later then 14 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair.
Charter
The Working Group shall consider the following questions as outlined in the Final Issue Report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/issue-report-irtp-c-29aug11-en.pdf) and make recommendations to the GNSO Council:
a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security.
b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed.
c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary IDs.
The Working Group shall follow the rules outlined in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-07apr11-en.pdf.
4. MOTION RE. REVISION OF THE GNSO COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES RELATING TO PROXY VOTING
Made by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Seconded by: Stéphane van Gelder
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council recently identified areas for improvement in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that would simplify and clarify the procedures relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council tasked the Operations Steering Committee (OSC) with completing a revision to improve the procedures relating to proxy voting;
WHEREAS, the OSC submitted to the GNSO Council on 14 June 2011 recommended revisions to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures in terms of how the proxy giver assigns a vote to the proxy holder to simplify and clarify the procedures and avoid contradicting the internal procedures of some constituencies;
WHEREAS, at its meeting on 22 June the GNSO Council acknowledged receipt of the recommended revisions submitted by the OSC and directed Staff to produce a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures incorporating the recommended revisions and to post the document for twenty-one (21) days in the ICANN Public Comment Forum;
WHEREAS, Staff produced a redlined revision of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures of Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 Relating to Proxy voting http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf and posted it for Public Comment beginning 19 July and ending 09 August 2011;
WHEREAS, Staff published a Report of Public Comments http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/report-comments-gnso-proxy-voting-11aug11-en.pdf indicating that no comments were received;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
RESOLVED that the GNSO Council adopts the Proposed Revisions to Chapters 3 and 4 of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-op-procedures-revisions-19jul11-en.pdf to simplify and clarify proxy voting including three rules: 1) it may either be directed, if applicable, by the proxy giver’s appointing organization; 2) the proxy giver may instruct the proxy holder how to cast the vote; and 3) in the absence of any instruction the proxy holder may vote freely on conscience.
RESOLVED FURTHER the GNSO Council instructs ICANN staff to incorporate the revisions into a new version of the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP), which becomes effective immediately upon adoption.
RESOLVED FURTHER that as the OSC has completed all of its tasks the GNSO Council hereby disbands the OSC and its Work Teams and expresses its gratitude and appreciation to the members of the OSC and its Work Teams for their dedication, commitment, and thoughtful recommendations.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Motion to Address the Remaining Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Recommendations
Made by: Zahid Jamil
Seconded by:
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies (RAP) Working Group submitted its report to the GNSO Council on 29 May 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/rap/rap-wg-final-report-29may10-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council reviewed the report and its recommendations and decided to form an implementation drafting team to draft a proposed approach with regard to the recommendations contained in the Registration Abuse Policies Working Group Final Report;
Whereas the Registration Abuse Policies Implementation Drafting Team submitted its proposed response to the GNSO Council on 15 November 2010 (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/rap-idt-to-gnso-council-15nov10-en.pdf);
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the proposed approached at its Working Session at the ICANN meeting in Cartagena;
Whereas the GNSO Council acted on a number of RAP recommendations at its meeting on 3 February 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201102);
Whereas the GNSO Council requested feedback from ICANN Compliance in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and a response was received on 23 February 2011 (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html). In addition, a discussion with Compliance Staff was held at the ICANN meeting in San Francisco.
Whereas the GNSO Council considered the remaining RAP recommendations in further detail during its working session at the ICANN meeting in Singapore based on an overview prepared by ICANN Staff (see http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/overview-rapwg-recommendations-18may11-en.pdf).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT:
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to WHOIS Access recommendation #2 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed. The GNSO Council welcomes the commitment of the ICANN Compliance Department ‘to report on compliance activities and publish data about WHOIS accessibility, on at least an annual basis' (see (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg10766.html).
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council thanks the ICANN Compliance Department for its feedback in relation to Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #1 and determines that no further work on this recommendation is needed.
RESOLVED, the GNSO Council determines that additional information is needed from the Registrar Stakeholder Group with regard to the conditional Fake Renewal Notices recommendation #2 before an Issue Report should be requested of Staff. The GNSO Council hereby requests that the Registrar Stakeholder Group provide further information and data on the nature and scope of the issue of Fake Renewal Notices to help inform the GNSO Council’s and its RAP WG deliberations on whether an Issue Report should be requested. A small group of volunteers consisting of registrar representatives and others interested (including former RAP WG members) should be formed to prepare such a request, work with the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain the information requested and report back to the GNSO Council accordingly.
RESOLVED, in response to WHOIS Access recommendation #1, the GNSO Council requests the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. If the WHOIS Survey Drafting Team is of the view that it is not appropriate or timely to include WHOIS Access as part of the survey, it should inform the GNSO Council accordingly so that the GNSO Council can determine what next steps, if any, might be appropriate at this stage in relation to this recommendation.
RESOLVED, with regard to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation and determines to defer its consideration until it evaluates the outcome of Malicious Use of Domain Names recommendation #1, which aims to develop best practices to help registrars and registries address the illicit use of domain names. In light of the pending request to Staff to develop a Discussion Paper on the Malicious Use of Domain Names, the GNSO Council believes that the upcoming review and analysis of this Discussion Paper may serve to inform the Council of the issues related to the Meta Issue: Collection and Dissemination of Best Practices recommendation.
RESOLVED, in regard to the recommendations on cross-TLD Registration Scam and Domain Kiting/Tasting, the GNSO Council Chair shall communicate to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) the findings of the RAP WG in this regard and request that the SSAC consider evaluating and/or monitoring these abuses. If the SSAC elects to conduct this work, the GNSO Council requests that the SSAC inform the GNSO Council if it believes that further policy work by the GNSO Council should be undertaken to address these two types of abuse. In addition, the GNSO Council suggests that the issue of cross-TLD registration scam be included in the agenda of its next meeting with the ccNSO Council since this type of abuse may also affect ccTLDs.
RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and hereby requests the ICANN Compliance Department to report on existing systems to report and track violations and/or complaints; improvements / changes made since the RAPWG Report or foreseen in the near future, and: identify gaps and any improvements that might be desirable but not foreseen at this stage. Further consideration of this Meta Issue, including the recommendations and considerations of the RAP WG in this regard, is deferred pending receipt of such information from the ICANN Compliance Department.
RESOLVED, in response to the recommendation on Uniformity of Contracts, the GNSO Council requests an Issue Report to evaluate whether a minimum baseline of registration abuse provisions should be created for all in scope ICANN agreements, and if created, how such language would be structured to address the most common forms of registration abuse.
RESOLVED, in response to the recommendations on Gripe Sites, Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #2, and; Cybersquatting recommendation #2, since the RAPWG did not achieve consensus on these recommendations, the GNSO Council defers undertaking further policy work on these recommendations at this time.
RESOLVED, in response to Gripe Sites; Deceptive and/or Offensive Domain Names recommendation #1, the GNSO Council acknowledges receipt of this recommendation, and agrees with the RAPWG that no further action is called for at this time.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
6. Motion for the Joint SO/AC Working Group on New gTLD Applicant Support FINAL REPORT
Made by: Rafik Dammak
Seconded by: Olga Cavalli
Whereas:
The GNSO Council and ALAC established the Joint SO/AC Working Group (JASWG) on support for new gTLD applicants in April of 2010; and
The Joint SO/AC Working Group released its second Milestone Report, posted for consideration by the Board, Chartering Organizations and at-large Community. This report documented the completion of work as defined in the extended charter and,
The Joint SO/AC Working Group received and discussed the public comments, and
The Joint SO/AC Working Group has completed the enumerated items as defined in its extended charter and has published a final report (https://community.icann.org/display/jaswg/JAS+Issues+and+Recommendations#) on 14 September 2011 covering those chartered items (http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20110113-1) entitled Final Report of the Joint SO/AC new GTLD applicant support working group. and
The Joint SO/AC Working Group is still in the process of completing some last tasks including completion of the formal documentation of the comment responses for the second milestone community review, and
The GNSO council does not wish to delay implementation of support programs for applicants from developing regions,
Resolved:
The GNSO Council thanks the members of the Joint SO/AC Working Group for its efforts and its dedication to completing these work items on such a tight schedule, and
The GNSO Council approves forwarding the final Report to the ICANN Board for review and approval, and
The GNSO Council request ICANN staff begin working on implementation of the recommendations , and
The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group complete the publication of its formal Milestone 2 response document as quickly as possible, and
The GNSO Council requests that the Joint SO/AC Working Group remain on call to review the outcome of the ICANN implementation of the JAS recommendations.
Resolved further, that the GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Chair to communicate its decision to the ALAC Chair.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
7. MOTION TO CREATE JOINT WORKING GROUP ON CONSUMER CHOICE, COMPETITION, AND INNOVATION (CCI):
Made by: Rosemary Sinclair
Seconded by: Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
Whereas, on 10 December 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 30 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#) requesting advice from the GNSO, CCNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011;
Whereas, since the receipt of this request, the GNSO Council has conducted preliminary work (led by Rosemary Sinclair) to develop these metrics through various workshops conducted at the Cartagena ICANN Meeting, and the Singapore ICANN Meeting;
Whereas, as a result of these preliminary activities, there is a desire to form a joint working group with any of these SO/ACs interested in participating in this joint effort to fulfill this Board request, in accordance with the Draft Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf presented to the GNSO Council.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT:
Resolved, that the GNSO Council directs that a joint working group be formed to produce a report for consideration by SOs /ACs to assist them to respond to the Board request for establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system;
Resolved further, that this newly formed joint working group is not authorized to forward to, or otherwise communicate its findings directly with, the ICANN Board;
Resolved further, that Rosemary Sinclair shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint working group;
Resolved further, it is recognized that the Consumer Choice, Competition, and Innovation (CCI) WG has already met informally and commenced activities in furtherance of this effort. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the GNSO Council, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim chair; and
Resolved further, that the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf is hereby approved for the CCI WG. As specified in the Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf, a Working Group Update Report is to be produced for consideration at the ICANN Dakar Meeting in October, 2011.
Resolved further, that in the event that no other SO/AC approves of the terms of this Charter http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/cci-charter-07sep11-en.pdf, the CCI WG shall continue to proceed as a GNSO Council chartered joint Working Group.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
8. Motion regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system;
Made by: Tim Ruiz
Seconded by:
WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has consulted extensively with representatives of international law enforcement agencies regarding the nature of Internet-based criminal activity and the information and tools available to help address crime that involves the domain name system; and
WHEREAS, the Registrar Stakeholder Group has reviewed law enforcement proposals and requests regarding registrar cooperation in addressing online crime; and
WHEREAS, the GNSO Council is prepared to assist law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based criminal activity;
NOW THEREFORE, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:
1. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, a valid physical address for the purpose of receiving legal service. This record must include a valid street address, city, appropriate region, telephone number and fax number. Registrars must publish this information on their respective web sites, and must notify ICANN staff and update their published addresses within 30 days of a change of address.
2. ICANN-accredited registrars must provide to ICANN staff, and ICANN staff must keep on record, the names of each registrar’s respective corporate President, Vice President, and Secretary, or the appropriate equivalents of those positions. These data may be made available upon request to a verified representative of a law enforcement agency, in a manner agreed to by ICANN staff, ICANN-accredited registrars, and representatives of law enforcement agencies. Registrars will notify ICANN of any changes in this information within 30 days of a change.
3. ICANN-accredited registrars must publish on their respective web sites e-mail and postal mail addresses to which law enforcement actions may be directed. The e-mail address will use a uniform convention (example: lawenforcement@example.tld) to facilitate ease of use by law enforcement agencies. Registrars may, at their individual discretion, include language in this section of their web sites, directed to the general public, that makes clear the use and expected outcomes of these points of contact and identifies the appropriate points of contact for other forms of business. Requests submitted by verified law enforcement agencies to this discrete point of contact must receive an acknowledgement of receipt from the registrar within 24 hours.
4. Law enforcement agencies provide, within six months of the date of approval of this policy by the ICANN Board and via the general advice of the GAC to the Board, their recommendations for a database and identification system that allows for expedient identification to a registrar of a law enforcement agency, and verification of the contacting party as a law enforcement agency upon that agency’s first contact with a registrar.
5. Implementation and execution of these recommendations be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically:
a. ICANN staff will analyze and report to the GNSO at six-month intervals for one year following implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the intention of determining:
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registrars, and
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of experiences during the implementation and monitoring stages.
b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional amendment, clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN staff.
----
9. Draft Motion to approve charter for Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG)
Made by: Wendy Seltzer
Seconded by:
Whereas there have been discussions for several years on the adequacy of the current set of Whois tools to provide the necessary functions to support existing and proposed Whois service policy requirements,
and there have been questions as to the adequacy of these tools for use in an IDN environment (see: joint SSAC Working Group on Internationalized Registration Data, https://community.icann.org/display/gnsossac/Internationalized+Registration+Data+Working+Group+-+Home ),
and there have been extensive discussions about the requirements of the Whois service with respect to Registry and registrar operations in the GNSO community (see: history of Whois policy activity: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/whois-services/ ),
and new architectures and tools have been developed and suggested by the technical community (see: development of IRIS RFC by the IETF: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4698 and initial IETF discussion of RESTful and current draft: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/weirds/current/maillist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00 );
Whereas on 07 May 2009, the GNSO Council resolved that Policy Staff, with the assistance of technical staff and GNSO Council members as required, should collect and organize a comprehensive set of requirements for the Whois service policy tools;
Whereas on 26 March 2010, Staff published a first draft of a Whois Service Requirements Inventory report, soliciting input from SOs and ACs;
Whereas on 31 May 2010, Staff posted a draft final report which reflected SO and AC input, soliciting input from the GNSO Council and community at the Brussels ICANN Public Meeting;
Whereas on 29 July 2010, Staff published the Inventory of Whois Service Requirements – Final Report;
Whereas on 19 May 2011, the GNSO Council asked Staff to issue a call for expertise seeking community volunteers to form a Whois Survey drafting team for the purpose of developing a survey of views regarding Whois Service Requirements;
Whereas in July 2011, several of these volunteers drafted a proposed charter for a Whois Survey “Working Group”, preferring the term “Working Group” to “Drafting Team” in this case;
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf
Resolved,
The GNSO Council convenes a Whois Survey Working Group (WS-WG) of interested volunteers to draft, implement, and analyze the results of a survey measuring the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the final Inventory of Whois Service Requirements Report of 29 July 2010.
The GNSO Council further approves the proposed charter for the Whois Survey Working Group as defined here:
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/policies/wswg-charter-12sep11-en.pdf
In accordance with this charter, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to produce a draft survey to be delivered to the GNSO Council for approval by March 2012. Following approval, the Whois Survey Working Group plans to then conduct this survey for a period not less than thirty (30) days, delivering a draft report describing survey results and recommendations for next steps to the GNSO Council.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
